The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a $52,000 costs order made against them following their successful motion to amend the statement of claim.
The plaintiffs argued the motions judge misapplied the 'indulgence' principle by awarding costs against the successful moving party.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the highly discretionary, fact-specific costs award.
The court held the stringent test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) was not met.
